Public Bill Committee

[Dr William McCrea in the Chair]

William McCrea: I welcome hon. Members to the Committee. I trust that they had a refreshing night’s sleep, ready for today’s proceedings.

Clause 1  - Retirement or resignation

Dan Byles: I beg to move amendment 1, in clause1,page1,line2,after ‘A’ insert—
‘member of the House of Lords who is a’.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 2, in clause1,page1,line2,after ‘or’ insert ‘otherwise’.
Amendment 3, in clause1,page1,line5,leave out ‘retirement or’.
Amendment 4, in clause1,page1,line10,leave out ‘Retirement or resignation’ and insert ‘Resignation’.
New clause 1—Interpretation—
‘(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is a member of the House of Lords if the person is entitled to receive writs of summons to attend that House.
(2) In determining whether a person is so entitled, ignore—
(a) section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 (disqualification on conviction of treason);
(b) sections 426A and 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (disqualification on insolvency);
(c) regulation 4 of the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1647) (disqualification where MEP).
(3) In this Act “peer” includes a person upon whom a dignity has been conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.’.
Amendment 28, in title,line1,leave out ‘retirement’ and insert ‘resignation’.

Dan Byles: It is an honour and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
The clause, as amended, would provide peers with an honourable and dignified resignation and retirement mechanism if they no longer felt able to serve the House. Serving in the House of Lords is a duty, but it should never feel like a life sentence. Members might have legitimate reasons for wishing to resign their post, such as if they were suffering from a serious long-term illness, so provision must be made for them to be able to do so. As the Leader’s Group on Members Leaving the House observed in 2011:
“For a conscientious member who has played a full role in Parliament, and takes his or her commitment to the House seriously, an honourable release from obligation could be welcome.”
Although there is a voluntary retirement mechanism, as of July 2013, only three Members had taken advantage of it, two of whom had not attended the House for some years. The broad consensus in the written evidence received by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee as part of its inquiry into reform of the Lords was that the voluntary retirement scheme had not been effective and had had no notable impact. In addition, while a leave of absence was introduced in 1958 to address concerns of low and non-attendance, it has not met its objective.
The clause as a whole will, for the first time, provide a formal statutory mechanism for peers to retire or otherwise resign if they no longer feel able to serve the House. Amendment 1 and new clause 1 are simply technical measures to clarify who is regarded as a Member of the House of Lords for the purpose of the Bill. They make it clear that those who are temporarily disqualified, such as because they are serving as Members of the European Parliament, are also included in the definition. They also set out that the Bill applies to Law Lords, which is essential, because their exact status under the 19th century Act that created them is vague.
Amendments 2 to 4 and 28 are drafting amendments that aim to simplify the wording of the Bill. The legal definition of “resignation” includes retirement, so there is no need to include references to “retirement” separately throughout the Bill. It is appropriate in terms of terminology, however, for peers to be aware that they may either retire or resign, which is why the reference is retained in clause 1(1).

Stephen Twigg: I shall endeavour to match the admirable brevity of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. I reinforce what he said about it being a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the Bill and its success in achieving its Second Reading and getting into Committee. I reaffirm the support of the official Opposition for this private Member’s Bill.
Let me take this opportunity to reinforce what my hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General said on Second Reading: we regard the Bill as sensible—in a sense, it is a housekeeping Bill—and modest, but nevertheless important. I put on record that we reaffirm our commitment to more far-reaching, democratic reform of the second Chamber, but I absolutely accept that the Bill does not prejudge that and that that is an issue for another day.
The clause is sensible and necessary. Without it, there would be a real risk that we would be heading towards an upper House with as many as 1,000 Members, which would be utterly indefensible. I therefore reaffirm our support for the clause and the sensible amendments proposed by the hon. Gentleman.

Greg Clark: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire on the drafting of the Bill and on bringing it to this stage of its proceedings. A degree of consensus is already breaking out in the room, as befits the Bill. It contains a set of modest proposals for sensible changes that I think will command the support of people not only in both Houses of Parliament, but throughout the country. I am conscious that some of the changes have been debated in the House of Lords, and I know that one of the sponsors of a predecessor Bill, Lord Steel, is in attendance at our proceedings today—it is good to see him in the Gallery.
As the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby said, the amendments make a sensible clarification. It is always good in Committee to simplify still further what is quite a simple Bill, and since the concept of retirement is included a resignation, it makes sense to simplify the Bill in such a way. The proposals have the support of the Government.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendments made: 2, in clause1,page1,line2,after ‘or’ insert ‘otherwise’.
Amendment 3, in clause1,page1,line5,leave out ‘retirement or’.
Amendment 4, in clause1,page1,line10,leave out ‘Retirement or resignation’ and insert ‘Resignation’.—(Dan Byles.)

Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2  - Maximum number of new peers

Dan Byles: I beg to move amendment 5, in clause2, page1,line12,leave out ‘peer who’ and insert
‘member of the House of Lords who is a peer and’.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 6, in clause2,page1,line14,leave out ‘Subsection (1) applies’ and insert
‘A peer “does not attend the House of Lords during a Session”’.
Amendment 7, in clause2,page1,line15,leave out
‘did not attend at any time during the Session’
and insert
‘at no time during the Session attended the House’.
Amendment 8, in clause2,page1,line18,at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to a peer in respect of attendance during a Session if—
(a) the peer was disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, or suspended from its service, for the whole of the Session, or
(b) the House resolves that subsection (1) should not apply to the peer by reason of special circumstances.’.
Amendment 9, in clause2,page1,line19,after ‘of’ insert ‘attendance during’.
Amendment 10, in clause2,page2,line4,leave out ‘from’ and insert
‘in respect of attendance during’.
Amendment 11, in clause2,page2,line4,at end insert ‘and subsequent Sessions’.
Amendment 27, in clause5,page3,line3,leave out
‘, and shall not be questioned in a court of law’.

Dan Byles: Clause 2 makes provision for persistent non-attenders to be expelled from the House of Lords. It will apply only if the Lord Speaker certifies that the peer did not attend at any time during a specified Session and that they did not have leave of absence during that Session. The provision will not apply if the Session is shorter than six months, and there is a general provision to allow the House to disregard disqualification on the grounds of non-attendance.
Receiving a peerage is a great privilege, and with it comes a significant responsibility to make an active and constructive contribution to the business of Parliament. Absentee Members who fail to attend are not fulfilling their duty to the House, so it is right that they should lose their membership of the House as a result. In addition, removing those who do not contribute to the work of the House will help to enhance the House’s reputation as a hard-working body.
I wanted to be sure that the provision would not punish those who faced ill health or a temporary change in circumstances. In such cases, peers will be able to apply for leave of absence, meaning that they will not fall foul of the clause. In addition, the House will have the discretion to disregard disqualification on the grounds of non-attendance to deal with situations in which peers are unable to attend or unable to apply for a leave of absence. The example given on Second Reading was that of a peer who might be taken as a prisoner of war.
The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee noted that the evidence it received demonstrated that there was broad support for tackling persistent non-attendance in the House. It acknowledged that there were a number of ways to deal with non-attendance, but gave its support for a similar formulation to the one the Bill proposes.
Amendment 5 specifically clarifies who is regarded as a Member of the House of Lords for the purposes of the Bill. Amendments 6, 7 and 9 to 11 clarify what constitutes attendance for the purposes of the Bill. Amendment 8 provides that if a peer is disqualified for a whole Session, such as because they are serving as a Member of the European Parliament, they will not lose their membership, given that they cannot seek leave of absence during such a temporary disqualification. It would clearly be unfair for peers in such circumstances to lose their membership owing to non-attendance.
Amendment 8 will also allow the House to disregard disqualification for non-attendance to allow for situations in which a peer is perhaps being held as a prisoner of war, or is for some other reason unable to apply for a leave of absence. That would also resolve the problem that could otherwise arise in which the House of Lords decided not to disqualify somebody who was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by a foreign court—I shall talk about that shortly—but if that imprisonment meant that they could be disqualified for non-attendance. If it is clearly the will of the House of Lords that a Member should not be disqualified, the amendment provides for the ability to disregard. In addition, it could apply if a peer was suspended for part of a Session, but did not attend the rest of the Session. The House would be able to consider the relative lengths of the two periods when deciding whether the peer should lose their membership. It is clearly desirable that the House is given flexibility to deal with special circumstances in which it would be unfair to revoke an individual’s membership.
Amendment 27 removes an unnecessary reference to proceedings of the House being questioned in a court of law. Matters of parliamentary privilege do not need to be expressly stated in legislation not to be justiciable. The privileges of Parliament are an integral part of our constitutional arrangements and I am committed to ensuring that the Bill does not intrude upon Parliament’s exclusive cognisance. Following careful consideration of the helpful remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) on Second Reading, I have concluded that the inclusion of a reference to certificates not being questioned in a court of law could invite examination, discussion and judgment from sources external to Parliament. The inclusion of the phrase might also cast doubt on Bills that do not include such wording. The retention or inclusion of such a provision could prompt unhelpful rulings by the courts regarding the nature or extent of privilege, or interaction with other statutes.
I have received advice from Sir Robert Rogers, the Clerk of the House, about whether the term “proceedings” should be defined in the Bill. He advised against it, as it is fraught with difficulty, as indeed he pointed out in his evidence to the Joint Committee on Parliamentary Privilege last year.
As specifying a definition is bound to exclude some aspects of Parliament’s work, and given that it is impossible to safeguard against that, such an approach might erode the common law on parliamentary privilege. I am confident that Members will share my desire to protect Parliament’s right to regulate its own affairs and, as provided for in the Bill of Rights, not to have its proceedings questioned. I am equally confident that the way in which that can be ensured in the context of the Bill is by removing the reference to certificates not being questioned in a court of law.

Stephen Twigg: The Bill is designed in part to stem the rapid growth of the membership of the second Chamber. Clearly, there are only two ways in which that can be done. One is to appoint fewer peers—perhaps the Minister will take that message back to the Prime Minister—but that is outside the scope of the Bill. The second is to allow existing Members to avail themselves of an opportunity to leave the House, and the clause deals with that approach intelligently.
I congratulate the promoter of the Bill on bringing forward amendments that meet most of those concerns expressed on Second Reading and that provide, as he said, flexibility in some of the special circumstances that he outlined. On that basis, we support the amendments.

Greg Clark: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby that the amendments are sensible. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire for taking the advice of senior colleagues and adjusting the Bill accordingly. His amendments will tighten up some of the definitions in the Bill. They provide for appropriate flexibility in the interpretation of non-attendance. Clearly, it would be unconscionable if a Member lost their membership because they were prevented from attending for very good reasons, so we support amendment 8.
We also support amendment 27, which removes the reference to proceedings not being questioned in a court of law. As my hon. Friend has proposed from the outset, the Bill makes sensible rather than revolutionary changes, and it was not his intention to set out wording that could cause great contention. In my experience, the advice of Sir Robert Rogers is always wise, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend has followed it. The Government support the amendments.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

Amendments made: 6, inclause 2, page1,line14,leave out ‘Subsection (1) applies’ and insert
‘A peer “does not attend the House of Lords during a Session”’.
Amendment 7, inclause 2, page1,line15,leave out
‘did not attend at any time during the Session’
and insert
‘at no time during the Session attended the House’.
Amendment 8, inclause 2, page1,line18,at end insert—
‘( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to a peer in respect of attendance during a Session if—
(a) the peer was disqualified from sitting or voting in the House, or suspended from its service, for the whole of the Session, or
(b) the House resolves that subsection (1) should not apply to the peer by reason of special circumstances.’.
Amendment 9, inclause 2, page1,line19,after ‘of’ insert ‘attendance during’.
Amendment 10, inclause 2, page2,line4,leave out ‘from’ and insert
‘in respect of attendance during’.
Amendment 11, inclause 2, page2,line4,at end insert ‘and subsequent Sessions’.—(Dan Byles.)

Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3  - Conviction of serious offence

Dan Byles: I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out
‘is to be treated as having been convicted of a serious offence’
and insert
‘“is convicted of a serious offence”’.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, after ‘person’ insert
‘, while a member of the House of Lords,’.
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘( ) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) whether the offence is committed at a time when the person is a member of the House of Lords;
(b) whether any of the offence, conviction, sentence, order, imprisonment or detention occurs in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; (but see subsection (6)).
( ) The reference in subsection (2) to an offence is only to an offence committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force.’.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
‘( ) The reference in subsection (2) to a person being sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year does not include such a sentence or order where the sentence or order is suspended.’.
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, leave out
‘takes effect on the day on which’
and insert
‘under subsection (2) takes effect when’.
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, leave out from ‘If’ to end of line 21 and insert
‘a person who has ceased to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section is successful on appeal—’.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, at beginning insert
‘on the issue of that certificate,’.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) A person who has ceased to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section “is successful on appeal” if, and only if, the Lord Speaker certifies that—
(a) the conviction certified under subsection (2)(a) has been quashed, or
(b) the sentence or order certified under subsection (2)(b) has been—
(i) varied so that it is no longer a sentence or order that the person be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year within the meaning of subsection (2)(b), or
(ii) replaced with another sentence or order that is not a sentence or order that the person be so imprisoned or detained.’.

Dan Byles: Clause 3 provides for Members who are convicted of a serious offence to lose their membership. In many ways, this is the clause in the Bill that has attracted the most interest. The provision will apply only if the Lord Speaker certifies that the Member has been convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment or detention of more than one year and the order is not suspended. If the person successfully appeals against their conviction or sentence, the Lord Speaker is to revoke the first certificate by issuing another. The Lord Speaker exercises no discretion or judgment in that. That is an important point, which was discussed on Second Reading. It is not the Lord Speaker making the decision to do that; he is simply the mechanism through which it is done, as a certificate relates to matters of fact.
Disqualification from the House will be automatic, although it will be open to the House to disregard a foreign conviction if special circumstances apply. For example, if a person is convicted abroad and the circumstances of their conviction appear to be unsafe or if the offence of which they are convicted is treated much more seriously in that country than we would treat it in the United Kingdom, it will be open to the House—not to the Lord Speaker personally—to disregard the conviction and to allow the peer to retain their membership of the House.
I appreciate that various views were expressed on this issue on Second Reading, but having given it very careful consideration, I remain unconvinced at present that an amendment to the clause is needed to exclude foreign convictions. It is right that the presumption is that a conviction for a serious offence will lead to a loss of membership. It is also right that a safeguard is provided to allow the House to take into account special circumstances in the case of foreign convictions, so that Members are not unfairly penalised if they are convicted in unusual circumstances. I believe that the Bill as drafted provides the necessary protection to Members who find themselves in that situation and the outcome remains the same.
It has long been the case in relation to this House that Members who are convicted of offences that carry a sentence of more than a year’s imprisonment are expelled. It is appropriate that that principle apply to the House of Lords as well.

Rory Stewart: Out of interest, will my hon. Friend clarify why we chose 12 months as the length of time that would be the cut-off date for imprisonment?

Dan Byles: That is a very good question. I have had a number of discussions with people about it. In this case, the aim is simply to bring the House of Lords into line with the House of Commons. There is of course a wider question about whether that is the appropriate length of time for either or both Houses, but I do not think that it would be right at this stage for the House of Lords to have a different threshold from the House of Commons. That is a wider debate that colleagues might wish to have on another occasion.
It is worth noting that this proposal received unanimous support in both the oral and the written evidence that the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform took during its inquiry into Lords reform.
I will now go through the amendments in detail. Amendments 12, 13 and 16 to 19 are simply technical amendments that clarify and improve the drafting. Amendment 12 makes it clear that subsection (2) applies to those who are convicted of a serious offence and removes the unnecessary reference to “treated”. Amendment 13 ensures that the application of the clause to convictions and sentences is not retrospective. Amendments 16 to 19 ensure that the circumstances in which certificates are issued are unambiguous and that there is a clear definition of “successful on appeal”. Amendment 13 makes it clear that certificates will take effect from the moment that they are issued. Amendment 14 ensures that the clause applies to offences that were committed at any time and to offences that are committed abroad. Disqualification from the House will be automatic, although it will be open to the House, as I said, to disregard a foreign conviction if special circumstances apply.
Amendment 15 allows Members who receive a suspended sentence of imprisonment to retain their seat. When a court imposes a custodial sentence, it may choose to suspend the sentence for up to two years. That means that the offender does not go to prison immediately, but is given the chance to stay out of trouble and to comply with requirements set by the court. The reason for that is that a suspended sentence is intended to be less punitive than an immediate custodial sentence. Accordingly, a less punitive approach to any continuing membership of the House of Lords should be adopted. Given that MPs who are given a suspended sentence are not disqualified under the Representation of the People Act 1981, suspended sentences should not trigger disqualification in the House of Lords. That is all I have to say on the amendments.

Stephen Twigg: The clause is an important part of the Bill. We have had a number of high-profile cases over the years, where peers have been convicted. The credibility of Parliament and the second Chamber is called into question when there is disparity between the treatment of Members of House of Commons, where imprisonment happens, and Members of the House of Lords. Bringing the two broadly into line is a sensible and long overdue reform, which we very strongly support.
The amendments that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire proposed are sensible. The solution that he has found to the tricky issue regarding potential convictions abroad is a sensible one that certainly, in my opinion, meets the concerns that were raised by Government Back Benchers on Second Reading. On that basis, I am pleased to give our support to the amendments and the clause.

Greg Clark: Like the hon. Gentleman, the Government support the amendments proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Some are technical amendments that clarify and improve the drafting, ensuring that the application of the clause to convictions and sentences is absolutely clear. My hon. Friend has found the right solution to a question that troubled the House on Second Reading, which was whether the disqualification should be automatic following a conviction by a foreign court. The fact that it will be automatic in the Bill, but open to the House, rather than the Lord Speaker personally, to consider whether special circumstances apply, provides the necessary assurance.
Amendment 15 brings the procedures of the House of Lords into line with those of the House of Commons, in terms of suspended sentences. On that basis—the limited ambition to align the regimes in the two Houses—my hon. Friend’s amendments do the job.

Thomas Docherty: I am most grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr McCrea, and I will be brief. On the point that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border touched on, I have previously expressed concern about 12 months and a day being required. You will probably recall, Dr McCrea, that I introduced a private Member’s Bill earlier in the Session, because one of my local Members of the Scottish Parliament was convicted, over the summer, of domestic abuse charges in a Scottish court. He was convicted of 23 counts of domestic violence against three former wives, and of breaking a frying pan over his stepdaughter’s head, but because of the way in which the court system worked, the maximum sentence he could receive was one year. He would not automatically be disqualified, because it is not only the House of Commons and the House of Lords that follow, or will follow, the system, but the three devolved Parliaments.
Although I understand why the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, whom I congratulate on his proposals, has suggested that the House of Lords should fall in line with the Commons, will the Minister indicate whether the Government have any intention of keeping the issue under review? It is probably fair to say that there is support on both sides of the House to have an appropriate look, perhaps on Report or elsewhere, at whether the law can be amended on the issue of 12 months and a day. Perhaps I could help the Minister further by saying that the issue of suspended sentences does not apply to Scotland; we do not have suspended sentences in Scotland.
I am grateful for the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship again, Dr McCrea, and I welcome the Bill.

Ian Paisley Jnr: It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr McCrea. I want to congratulate the hon. Member for North Warwickshire on tabling the amendments. They bring the legislation into line and therefore, I hope it proceeds expeditiously.

Dan Byles: I want to say a few more words, given that there has been more discussion about the 12 months. I am not sure whether it is appropriate for the Minister to stand up and directly respond to that, but I entirely understand the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife. The example he gave from Scotland raises serious concerns. It is clearly a much wider question than the Bill can address, and it would probably require primary legislation to make changes to this House and the devolved Assemblies. That would probably be part of a wider discussion about what the right level is. I would be happy to have that discussion with the Minister—to take it up with him and prod him—perhaps during a subsequent debate or a subsequent Bill that we might look at. I thank both the hon. Gentlemen who raised the matter. It is an interesting point that perhaps I had not considered fully.
The House of Commons already has the power to expel Members for wrongdoing, not just as a result of a criminal offence, but I must confess that I do not know whether that applies to the devolved Administrations.
 Thomas Docherty  indicated dissent.

Dan Byles: I see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. It seems as though there are several anomalies, where there are differences between the various Parliaments and Assemblies, which could at some point be tied up, but that falls outside the scope of the Bill.

Amendment 12 agreed to.

Amendments made: 13, in clause 3, page 2, line 9, after ‘person’ insert
‘, while a member of the House of Lords,’.
Amendment 14, in clause 3, page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘( ) It is irrelevant for the purposes of subsection (2)—
(a) whether the offence is committed at a time when the person is a member of the House of Lords;
(b) whether any of the offence, conviction, sentence, order, imprisonment or detention occurs in the United Kingdom or elsewhere; (but see subsection (6)).
( ) The reference in subsection (2) to an offence is only to an offence committed on or after the day on which this section comes into force.’.
Amendment 15, in clause 3, page 2, line 17, at end insert—
‘( ) The reference in subsection (2) to a person being sentenced or ordered to be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year does not include such a sentence or order where the sentence or order is suspended.’.
Amendment 16, in clause 3, page 2, line 18, leave out ‘takes effect on the day on which’ and insert
‘under subsection (2) takes effect when’.
Amendment 17, in clause 3, page 2, line 19, leave out from ‘If’ to end of line 21 and insert
‘a person who has ceased to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section is successful on appeal—’.
Amendment 18, in clause 3, page 2, line 23, at beginning insert
‘on the issue of that certificate,’.
Amendment 19, in clause 3, page 2, line 24, at end insert—
‘( ) A person who has ceased to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this section “is successful on appeal” if, and only if, the Lord Speaker certifies that—
(a) the conviction certified under subsection (2)(a) has been quashed, or
(b) the sentence or order certified under subsection (2)(b) has been—
(i) varied so that it is no longer a sentence or order that the person be imprisoned or detained indefinitely or for more than one year within the meaning of subsection (2)(b), or
(ii) replaced with another sentence or order that is not a sentence or order that the person be so imprisoned or detained.’.—(Dan Byles.)

Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4  - Effect of ceasing to be a member

Dan Byles: I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 2, line 33, after ‘not’ insert ‘be entitled to’.

William McCrea: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 4, page 2, line 34, after ‘Life Peerages Act 1958,’ insert
‘by virtue of the dignity conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary,’.
Amendment 22, in clause 4, page 2, line 37, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) If the person is a hereditary peer who is excepted from section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 by virtue of section 2 of that Act, the person ceases to be excepted from section 1 of that Act (and accordingly section 3 of that Act applies (removal of disqualification on voting in parliamentary elections or being an MP)).’.
Amendment 23, in clause 4, page 2, line 39, leave out from beginning to ‘disqualified’ and insert—
‘If the person is a peer other than a hereditary peer, the person is not, by virtue of that peerage,’.
Amendment 24, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
‘( ) In relation to a peer who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this Act, any reference in section 1(3) or (4)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 to a register of parliamentary electors is to be read as including—
(a) any register of local government electors in Great Britain, and
(b) any register of local electors in Northern Ireland,
which was required to be published on any date before the date on which the peer ceased to be a member.’.
Amendment 25, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
‘( ) The Standing Orders of the House required by section 2(4) of the House of Lords Act 1999 (filling of vacancies) must make provision requiring the holding of a by-election to fill any vacancy which arises under this Act among the people excepted from section 1 of that Act in consequence of an election.’
Amendment 26, in clause 4, page 2, line 42, at end insert—
‘( ) Subject to section 3(5), a person who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this Act may not subsequently become a member of that House.’

Dan Byles: Clause 4 as modified by the amendments outlines the effect of ceasing to be a Member, whether through non-attendance, resignation or disqualification due to conviction. A departing peer will be disqualified from attending proceedings of the House of Lords and they will no longer receive a writ to attend. I have received advice from Sir Robert Rodgers, Clerk of the House, on whether the term “proceedings” should be defined in the Bill. As I have said, he has advised against that for various reasons.
The clause also provides that a peer who ceases to be a Member is no longer disqualified from voting at elections or from being elected to the House of Commons. In addition, the clause specifically provides for by-elections to take place so that hereditary peers who resign, retire or who are disqualified can be replaced. I shall explain more about that in a moment.
Amendment 20 is a drafting amendment that makes it clear that a departing peer is not entitled to a writ. Amendments 21 to 23 are drafting amendments to clarify the position of serving judges who are also Members of the Lords and hereditary peers who are also life peers. Amendment 24 is a drafting amendment designed to ensure that peers who are overseas voters can vote in Commons elections.
Amendment 25 provides that, on a vacancy emerging for one of the 90 hereditary peerage places as a result of resignation or disqualification, a by-election for that place should be automatically triggered. It is a requirement in the House of Lords Act 1999 that there must be 90 excepted Members. Section 2(4) requires Standing Orders to provide for a by-election to take place to fill a vacancy, but the Act covers only situations in which a vacancy is caused by a Member’s death. Because I propose a new statutory mechanism for peers to resign and/or be disqualified, the Bill needs to stipulate how such vacancies will be filled in the case of hereditary peers. That is due to the requirement under the 1999 Act that there be 90 excepted peers and the fact that it allows a by-election only in the event of a peer’s death. Some people have been a little confused about why we appear to be amending the 1999 Act, but when Members consider the situation, they will see that it is straightforward.
Amendment 26 makes it clear that departing peers cannot return. I have discussed with colleagues and stakeholders—a horrible modern word—whether there should be provision for some sort of rehabilitation, but have concluded that to provide certainty and ensure that individuals who choose to leave do not take that decision lightly, a departing peer should not be able to return in the event that they leave the House of Lords under the Act.

Stephen Twigg: The 1999 Act to which the hon. Gentleman refers was the first significant piece of reform of the second Chamber for almost half a century, after the introduction of life peerages in the late 1950s. As Members on both sides of the Committee may recall, the original aim of the Act was to remove hereditary peers from the House altogether, but a compromise was struck to enable the legislation to go through. As the hon. Gentleman has said, that compromise resulted in 90 places being reserved for hereditary peers and in the curiosity that we finally have an elected element in the second Chamber—hereditary peers are elected in by-elections when a hereditary peer passes away.
I hope we return to that curiosity in future, because I certainly do not believe that there is any place for the hereditary principle in the membership of either of the Houses of Parliament. I accept, however, that the amendments the hon. Gentleman has argued for are a logical consequence of the 1999 Act and that it is beyond the scope of his private Member’s Bill to make that more fundamental change. On that basis, the Opposition support the amendments.

Greg Clark: Like the Opposition and for the same reasons, the Government support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire. Clearly, the Bill will not be the last word on reform of the House of Lords. His ambition in the Bill is to draft changes that will command support in both Houses and to work within the existing arrangements. He has done that diligently.
The amendments clarify terminology, clarify that the departing peer will not be entitled to a writ and make it absolutely clear that membership of the House of Lords cannot be a revolving door, and that those Members of the House of Lords who leave it do so permanently.
The Government support amendment 25, which makes it clear how vacancies created among the hereditary peers will be filled. Again, it is necessary to make that change as a consequence of the 1999 Act. The Government remain committed to a majority elected House of Lords, but in the absence of far-reaching legislation on that matter, the amendment seems a sensible way forward.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I suppose I should declare an interest, as both of my parents are in the House of Lords. My father had all his problems before he entered the House of Lords—he does not intend to do anything to try to get thrown out now he is there. The amendments make sense in the flow of the legislation and we should proceed with them.

Andrew George: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire both in the manner in which he is handling the Bill and in the amendments he has put forward, but I do not think it would be appropriate to allow this moment to pass without adding the comment that, if the intention is to achieve a second Chamber that is capable of sober second thought and independent scrutiny of what the Government are doing so as to support the role of the House of Commons as primary Chamber, at some stage we clearly need to remove hereditary peers from the House of Lords and, ultimately, to remove those of its Members who have arrived there by any means of patronage. We are not empowered to do that on this occasion or to take the Bill further than where we have reached today. It is a pity that we do not have powers to amend the Bill to strengthen the independence of the House of Lords in that regard.

Dan Byles: I thank the hon. Member for St Ives for those remarks. The beauty of the Bill is that it can be supported—I hope—by hon. Members almost regardless of their views of what the composition of the upper House and the mechanism for entry to it should be. I entirely understand his thoughts on the matter, and I know hon. Members have quite strong and often opposing views on just how one should get in to the other place. That is why I have limited the Bill to how one gets out.

Amendment 20 agreed to.

Amendments made: 21, in clause4,page2,line34,after ‘Life Peerages Act 1958,’ insert
‘by virtue of the dignity conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary,’.
Amendment 22, in clause4,page2,line37,leave out subsection (4) and insert—
‘(4) If the person is a hereditary peer who is excepted from section 1 of the House of Lords Act 1999 by virtue of section 2 of that Act, the person ceases to be excepted from section 1 of that Act (and accordingly section 3 of that Act applies (removal of disqualification on voting in parliamentary elections or being an MP)).’.
Amendment 23, in clause4,page2,line39,leave out from beginning to ‘disqualified’ and insert—
‘If the person is a peer other than a hereditary peer, the person is not, by virtue of that peerage,’.
Amendment 24, in clause4,page2,line42,at end insert—
‘( ) In relation to a peer who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this Act, any reference in section 1(3) or (4)(b) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 to a register of parliamentary electors is to be read as including—
(a) any register of local government electors in Great Britain, and
(b) any register of local electors in Northern Ireland,
which was required to be published on any date before the date on which the peer ceased to be a member.’.
Amendment 25, in clause4,page2,line42,at end insert—
‘( ) The Standing Orders of the House required by section 2(4) of the House of Lords Act 1999 (filling of vacancies) must make provision requiring the holding of a by-election to fill any vacancy which arises under this Act among the people excepted from section 1 of that Act in consequence of an election.’
Amendment 26, in clause4,page2,line42,at end insert—
‘( ) Subject to section 3(5), a person who ceases to be a member of the House of Lords in accordance with this Act may not subsequently become a member of that House.’—(Dan Byles.)

Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5  - Certificate of Lord Speaker

Amendment made: 27, in clause5,page3,line3,leave out ‘, and shall not be questioned in a court of law’.—(Dan Byles.)

Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1  - Interpretation

‘(1) For the purposes of this Act a person is a member of the House of Lords if the person is entitled to receive writs of summons to attend that House.
(2) In determining whether a person is so entitled, ignore—
(a) section 2 of the Forfeiture Act 1870 (disqualification on conviction of treason);
(b) sections 426A and 427 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (disqualification on insolvency);
(c) regulation 4 of the European Parliament (House of Lords Disqualification) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1647) (disqualification where MEP).
(3) In this Act “peer” includes a person upon whom a dignity has been conferred by virtue of appointment as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary.’.—(Dan Byles.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dan Byles: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is straightforward in that it provides clarity on the definition of “member of the House of Lords” and “peer” for the purposes of the Bill. It makes it clear that peers who are disqualified from attending under other provisions, such as MEPs, retain their membership and that the Bill applies to the Law Lords.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Title

Amendment made: 28, in title, line1, leave out ‘retirement’ and insert ‘resignation’.—(Dan Byles.)

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose.